(CNSNews.com) - Fifty-two percent of Republicans say that America needs a third party, according to a newly released Gallup poll. Forty-nine percent of Democrats say the same thing.

"In fact,' said Gallup in its analysis of the poll, "this marks the first time that a majority of either party's supporters have said a third party is needed."

The Gallup survey, which interviewed 1,028 adults (18 and over) nationwide, asked: 'In your view, do the Republican and Democratic parties do an adequate job of representing the American people, or do they do such a poor job that a third major party is needed."

Overall, 60 percent said that a third party was needed, 26 percent said the Republicans and Democrats do an adequate job, and 14 percent said they had no opinion.

The 60 percent who said a third party was needed was the highest percentage giving that answer to Gallup since the polling company started asking the question back in 2003. The 26 percent who said the two major parties are doing an adequate is the lowest percentage who have given that answer.

Gallup did not publish any survey data about why those among the 60 percent think a third party is needed.

Between reforming the GOP from the inside, or a 3rd party, it is not a hard choice.

How can you reform the GOP from the inside out when you have so many GOP leaders that should be in the democrat party? There's very little difference in the democrats and republicans except for around 15 percent of them.If you're going to vote republican, you might as well vote democrat. No difference.

I'd rather have a third party and lose because the two parties we have now are one and the same.

It was started by a group of people who realized going 3rd party is counterproductive and will only insure Democrat dominance (cf: Ross Perot). It exist to replace RINOs with true Conservatives within the Republican Party as the only viable option for success.

I say this with some experience as I was a very active member of the Libertarian Party for years. Their ideas have caught on but not their candidates. The woman who organized us locally came out of the Constitution Party.

I would encourage you to investigate the RLC and then perhaps become active.

This is why both parties make it so difficult for a third party candidate to even get on the ballot in all 50 states... both parties are pretty much one and the same at the top...... and the 17th amendment is as much to blame for this as anything.

It was started by a group of people who realized going 3rd party is counterproductive and will only insure Democrat dominance (cf: Ross Perot). It exist to replace RINOs with true Conservatives within the Republican Party as the only viable option for success.

I say this with some experience as I was a very active member of the Libertarian Party for years. Their ideas have caught on but not their candidates. The woman who organized us locally came out of the Constitution Party.

I would encourage you to investigate the RLC and then perhaps become active.

"The RLC works within the Republican Party to influence the party to adopt the RLC's agenda. As one activist put it, "We're trying to reintroduce the Republican platform to the Republican Party.

The RLC favors individual freedom and limited government.[8] Specifically, the RLC favors reduced government intrusion, lower taxes, elimination of federal agencies, less regulation, a strong national defense with fewer military bases abroad, and no foreign aid."

"The RLC works within the Republican Party to influence the party to adopt the RLC's agenda. As one activist put it, "We're trying to reintroduce the Republican platform to the Republican Party.

The RLC favors individual freedom and limited government.[8] Specifically, the RLC favors reduced government intrusion, lower taxes, elimination of federal agencies, less regulation, a strong national defense with fewer military bases abroad, and no foreign aid."

[[ I'd rather have a third party and lose because the two parties we have now are one and the same. ]]

That's a very wise comment.

Conservatives should realize that we will likely endure a decade, possibly longer, of losses by an emerging new party before it gains traction.

This is because the old party that is being "replaced" must wither and die on the vine beforehand. The new party can't move into the "political space" that the dying one occupied until the old party vacates that space.

The reason the Republicans replaced the Whigs in such a relatively short time span was because the Whigs self-destructed so quickly. There was a "political vacuum" created, and politics (like nature) abhors vacuums. At the time, the Republicans were the emerging party of ideas, so that space was promptly filled.

Today it's the Republican party that is twisting in the wind, its elite having run out of ideas as to how to ideologically oppose the 'rat/socialists in a way that is capable of garnering enough support from "traditional Americans" to win national elections. The faction of the party that _does_ have ideas (the Tea Party) is looked upon with disdain and horror by the GOPe. They know what the "revolt down below" is all about.

I reckon the Republicans have about two more elections to go before "the writing is on the wall". If they lose in both 2014 (may be influenced by the outcome of the current budget/ObamaCare battle), and then again in 2016, it's going to be difficult for Republican leaders to continue to insist that they have a role in the future of American politics. At least one that looks significantly different than that of the 'rats.

If they continue to ignore "the base", the pedastal of their party edifice may erode away, until there's nothing left to keep it standing and the whole shebang topples right over.

When it does, they won't even be "the second party" any longer.And at that point, the [so-called "third"] _new_ party will be there to fill the vacuum.